Ayn Rand believed in a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church compared to Romney/Ryan who believes big corporate business should run Government

Republican God Ayn Rand disciple Romney/Ryan believe No Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no welfare for anyone, no government-provided disaster relief, no post office, no public schools or state universities.

God Ayn rand Commands: There would be no antitrust laws, no Federal Reserve, no regulatory agencies of any kind.

Republican God Ayn Rand directs there are only three legitimate functions of government: the military, to protect you against foreign aggressors; the police, to protect you from domestic aggressors (criminals); and the law courts, to settle disputes

Romney/Ryan: we must do what Republican God Ayn Rand commands

Undecided
(Please leave a comment)

All of the above

None of the above
(Please leave a comment)

Loading Demographics...

Click an icon to see demographic results

Display unknown and private

Under the Romney/Ryan Plan, Ayn Rand becomes god of the Republican Party

Ayn Rand believed in a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church compared to Romney/Ryan who believes big corporate business should run Government

0 votes

0%

Republican God Ayn Rand disciple Romney/Ryan believe No Social Security, no Medicare or Medicaid, no welfare for anyone, no government-provided disaster relief, no post office, no public schools or state universities.

4 votes

5%

God Ayn rand Commands: There would be no antitrust laws, no Federal Reserve, no regulatory agencies of any kind.

3 votes

4%

Republican God Ayn Rand directs there are only three legitimate functions of government: the military, to protect you against foreign aggressors; the police, to protect you from domestic aggressors (criminals); and the law courts, to settle disputes

Top Opinion

Wendell Willkie (the republican with whom she was so closely tied) was an inconsistent "conservative" at best. Honestly, I don't give two hoots in a hailstorm if they worship her, Palin or the man in the moon. Again, it is all subterfuge (from both parties) designed to get you to look the other way and hide their shame. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" should be the modern day cry of both parties.

To paraphrase what Ms Rand said, there are two kinds of people - those that matter and those who don't and the second ones shouldn't exist. I'm not so sure that makes her a God of the republican party. I do believe even most republicans are not that heartless. Besides, who would be left to clean their houses, clean their clothes, wash their cars, cook their food, drive them everywhere, etc. Somearenot so fortunate to have parents who could afford college, yet made too much for them to get scholarships or student loans. They are still intellligent.

Anyway in answer to the question, I do not think any of the descriptions are correct.

It would be helpful, bob, if you understood what Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' is. Essentially, it's her philosophy on Natural Law and Natural Rights. You should also read Hobbes, Locke, Aquinas and Montesquieu. Much better reading than Marx, Engels and Mao.

The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed whil...

It would be helpful, bob, if you understood what Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' is. Essentially, it's her philosophy on Natural Law and Natural Rights. You should also read Hobbes, Locke, Aquinas and Montesquieu. Much better reading than Marx, Engels and Mao.

The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962.
by Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Ayn Rand was a great thinker, novelist, and human being. She believed that charity belongs in the private sector, not the force-wielding government sector. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Davey Crockett all believed the same thing. The present government welfare programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, Disability, and nearly never-ending unemployment benefits is not sustainable. It will break the backs of today's young Americans and leave their futures hopeless. Ryan and Romney are now willing to address some of the problems. Real leaders do that: they identify problems and actually get to work on them. Obama is just a panderer who lusts mightily for power.

Why do you call Social Security and medicare welfare programs? About SS: We paid taxes on our earnings before it was taken out so it was taxed at that point. Now that we are receiving it ,we pay taxes again. Last I heard that is what the real Boston Tea Party was all about - taxation without representation. As to medicare, I have over $100 a month come out of the little SS i do receive to pay for it. And it doesn't cover the total amount of anything. A suplimental has to be bought, too. If you think that is welfare, you better check up on it. Those on SS are taxpayers, too.

In 1976 she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, reluctantly allowed Evva Pryor, a consultant from her attorney's office, to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare.

This all starts with Alan Greenspan, who was actually a disciple of Rand. Where as Ayn Ryan had never met her - just worshipped her. Her idealogy was simple and I think that's why Republicons gravitate toward her.

Ryan wants to carry on this flawed idealogy, even though the great Greenspan in 2008 had to apologize before congress and admit that his idealogy was all wrong.

Ayn Rand did not believe in god.
She was Atheist.
She also did not believe that family had anything to do with a society.
She was a staunch Pro-Choice advocate.
She did not think that being gay was a crime and it was rumored that she herself was Bisexual.

SO YEAH. I think she is ryans demigod. Since they are running a campaign where facts do matter.

Ayn Rand was a fool and those who follow her crap don't even really know for what she stood. Plus, many conservative religious individuals follow her teachings and don't even realize that what she said is diametrically opposed to what their own scripture teaches.

News flash - my comment was in relation to Ayn Rand. She did NOT believe in private charities. That's part of her problem. She believed that if someone did not pull themselves out of their problem - no matter what it was, then they did not deserve help. Hence, no one deserves help no matter the circumstances. She believed that being with someone was okay until someone better came along. Hence, her affairs and her marriage disintegrating. Ayn Rand was a narcissist, plain and simple. Unfortunately, many think they agree with her when, in fact, they have no idea for what she, actually, stood. Ryan is now distancing himself from her because what she believed is now being exposed. He's supposedly an intelligent man. So, does he agree with her and is now realizing this is a problem so is now distancing himself OR is he not so intelligent?

You make quite a leap of assumptions there in your string of several sentences. The ideals of her 'objectivism' movement hold some true merit in that we can't keep supporting those that just won't do a damned thing for themselves.

From the above link:

Objectivism sees benevolent generosity as the complement of justice, not its antithesis. One reason we don't have blanket obligations to support “the poor,” for example, is because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices. You mention poor children, on the other hand, and here at least we may see opportunities to invest in people and see results, since children can be taught better ways of living. But mere charity is not necessarily helpful even in the case of children, as generations of government welfare programs and decades of ever-rising public school spending have proved.

The above paragraph touches on what ticks many of we conservatives off about the government forced, obligatory support of a sector of society that often takes advantage. Worse yet, those that would like ...

Where was my comment not in regards to Rand??

Take a look at this piece from the Atlas Society. I'm afraid you're mistaken when you say she didn't believe in private charities.

You make quite a leap of assumptions there in your string of several sentences. The ideals of her 'objectivism' movement hold some true merit in that we can't keep supporting those that just won't do a damned thing for themselves.

From the above link:

Objectivism sees benevolent generosity as the complement of justice, not its antithesis. One reason we don't have blanket obligations to support “the poor,” for example, is because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices. You mention poor children, on the other hand, and here at least we may see opportunities to invest in people and see results, since children can be taught better ways of living. But mere charity is not necessarily helpful even in the case of children, as generations of government welfare programs and decades of ever-rising public school spending have proved.

The above paragraph touches on what ticks many of we conservatives off about the government forced, obligatory support of a sector of society that often takes advantage. Worse yet, those that would like to be 'off the teat' and independent wind up in a cycle of dependence the way the programs are structured.

What she believed is now being exposed? As if it wasn't there for seeking prior?

Ayn Rand came from Russia, and her family was very much affected by the Bolshevik revolution. Her father built a family mini dynasty as a pharmacist, and in one fell swoop the government took it all from them. This left a lasting, heavily negative impression on her in regards to this collectivist movement and many of us can relate.

As to her romantic endeavors and her own personal ethics in regards to relationships, can't say I agree in the least. Like with most things, moderation and balance is the key. Rand took self serving ideals too far in some aspects and as a result, she lost many of those close associates later in life. I don't disagree that she at the very least had some narcissist tendencies. But then, we can see those tendencies in many famous and accomplished people.

Its quite humorous they love her for her economics but if they focused on here church and state policy it would tear the party asunder. An atheist and laissez faire economist they kinda go together because if an economy is to be SUPER FREE it can't have an inhibitors such as religious institutions not to mention laissez-fair is a terrible concept. Anyone play BioShock?

There has indeed been a libertarian shift in the Republican Party but there is little in the Party platform which supports the notion that they follow Ayn Rand. Consider Rand's "open marriage", support for abortion rights, Russian birth and Soviet education. Does any of this sound like someone who would be permitted to speak at a Republican convention?

Wendell Willkie (the republican with whom she was so closely tied) was an inconsistent "conservative" at best. Honestly, I don't give two hoots in a hailstorm if they worship her, Palin or the man in the moon. Again, it is all subterfuge (from both parties) designed to get you to look the other way and hide their shame. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" should be the modern day cry of both parties.